Would Donald Trump really use the military to take revenge on his alleged political rival? : NPR

NPR's A Martinez speaks with Mark Esper, a Trump-era defense secretary, about how Donald Trump could use the military if he wins the next election. For example to round up and expel migrants.

AND MARTNEZ, GUEST:

A number of President Trump's former aides are concerned about how he might use the military if he is re-elected. That's because he's repeatedly said things like what he told Fox's Maria Bartiromo earlier this month.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DONALD TRUMP: I think the biggest problem is the people on the inside. We have very bad people. We have sick, crazy radical leftists. And I think they are – and this should be very easily handled by – if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the Army.

MARTNEZ: In the summer of 2020, Trump wanted to use active-duty troops to quell Black Lives Matter protests. His defense secretary at the time, Mark Esper, disagreed with him. Here's Esper speaking at the Pentagon in June.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MARK ESPER: The option of using active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations. We are not in one of those situations right now.

MARTNEZ: Esper says he stayed on the job as long as he could, until Trump fired him in November of that year. I spoke to the former Secretary of Defense yesterday and asked him how he remembered his interactions with Trump during these turbulent months of 2020.

We understand that after you said that, Mark Meadows called you and yelled at you, I mean, he really threw expletives at you – and then at the White House, Donald Trump did the same thing. I mean, what was going through your head when that happened, when you got that kind of response to what you said?

ESPER: I would have to go back into my memoirs and see exactly how I wrote them. And what I said at the Pentagon, and I think this is what you're referring to, was that I stood before the American public at the podium and said that There was no need for American troops except in the most urgent and dire circumstances. – RIGHT? – because we have, however, already deployed federal troops in certain situations at the request of governors. You think about the days of segregation. But in these circumstances, when the discussion in the Oval Office two days earlier was about the use of active-duty troops to suppress protests, peaceful protests, I thought that clearly crossed the line.

And for me, that was the problem, and that's why I felt that, as I wrote in my memoir, over the previous two days tensions continued to escalate in the country. . More and more protests were breaking out in the cities and, of course, there was now the shadow of the deployment of the US military. And I felt the need a day and a half later, on the morning of June 3, I believe, to come out publicly and say that I did not support invoking the Insurrection Act.

MARTNEZ: I was listening to an interview you did a few years ago with my colleague Michel Martin, and you said that when Donald Trump asked, why can't you just shoot them in the leg, that it was a suggestion in the form of a question. That's how you describe it. Why do you think he didn't just make it an actual presidential order?

ESPER: That tended to be his style, was to talk in terms of suggestions or, wouldn't it be great if someone did that, or – he was reluctant to give orders for whatever reason. I think he was trying to take the temperature of the audience to see if there would be receptivity. And, you know, when he said that, we were all stunned, especially General Mark Milley and myself, who were the ones we were primarily talking to at that point.

MARTNEZ: Secretary, what do you think would have happened if Donald Trump had actually issued this order?

ESPER: Well, in this case, to deploy paratroopers on the streets of Washington, D.C., the worst of the worst would be to see active duty troops on the streets. Again, worst case scenario, they would be armed. And worst case scenario, like we saw at Kent State, they would shoot their guns. And I can say that with some credibility because I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne stationed in Europe. I understand military ethics. I understand the nature of the military. And I also understand our history.

And to me, there were a number of really bad outcomes, including what would happen at the scene to peaceful protesters or even protesters who were not peaceful but were violent. You had this immediate negative: people were being shot, even killed, and what that means. There would obviously be a crisis in government as active duty troops were deployed to the streets of Washington, DC.

MARTNEZ: You mentioned maybe a situation where it's urgent and dire. What would that mean? Give us an idea of ​​what that would look like, if an urgent and dire situation required it.

ESPER: Well, you could go back to our history, or you could just imagine situations. I mean, the Insurrection Act was intended to suppress insurrections or rebellions. So if you literally had an armed rebellion that neither law enforcement – and this is how I thought throughout the whole process – law enforcement, whether local, state or federal or the National Guard, could not suppress or control, which is where there is a role for active duty troops in this scenario.

MARTNEZ: In 1968, black soldiers refused to arrest people at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Five dozen Fort Hood service members were court-martialed. My colleague Tom Bowman spoke to a retired senior U.S. official who said that if they – you – if an administration used an active military to deport migrants, it could break the military. Mr. Secretary, do you see a similar scenario that would worry you if this was something an administration wanted to do regarding migrants?

ESPER: I don't believe the active military can be used to arrest people in the country illegally and deport them, if you will. I believe this violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which basically restricts the United States military, the active duty military, from carrying out law enforcement activities within the territory of the United States. So there are a few exceptions here and there, but they're very specific. So I don't believe that this authority exists. But I'm not a lawyer and I think it's a question that needs to be looked into.

MARTNEZ: How concerned are you that if Donald Trump had a second administration, that he wouldn't surround himself with people like you who would resist, that he would have people who would encourage him to act on these impulses, these inclinations? ? , what do you call them?

ESPER: My concern has always been that in a second term, Trump and his entourage have learned the lesson that you have to recruit the right people, people who will be loyal to you and who will be faithful to what you want to do in your politicians, people who are I'm not necessarily loyal to the Constitution, but to the president. And that’s a big distinction. This is certainly an important element when it comes to the oath of office to the Constitution that we all take, but particularly those in the military.

MARTNEZ: Secretary, do you agree with John Kelly, Trump's former chief of staff and former Marine general, who said that Trump meets the definition of a fascist and, quote, “prefers l 'dictatorial approach to government'?

ESPER: You know, I said what's – the terrible thing that's happened in recent years is that the public discourse has become too angry, too mean. There are too many insults, ad hominem attacks, etc. So I'm not going to put a label on it at the moment. But what I said the other day was this: if you open the dictionary and look at how fascism or a fascist is described. There are certain elements. And looking through this, you can't help but see where John Kelly is coming from and agree with some of the descriptions. And so I think everyone should make their own judgment. I am worried and have expressed my caution to others as a warning.

MARTNEZ: That's former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Secretary, thank you.

ESPER: Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.

NPR transcripts are created on urgent deadlines by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio recording.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos